Gay Rights

[Wik]

Something you may not have considered - not all Western democracies have separation of Church and State. In the UK, 26 Church of England archbishops and bishops are appointed to sit in the House of Lords.

Ok, I'm curious. What exactly do you mean here? Are they pushed through without a vote? The House of Lords is similar to the Senate in the US and Canada, correct? In that it's appointed by political appointment, not through a vote?

Do these church of England appointments have to be filled? I'm unsure about exactly what you mean here. Because, as JFK made sure everyone understood some fifty-odd years ago, "Seperation of Church and State" does not mean that you can't belong to a church and still be an elected official. And, as we see in the US all the bloody time, voting based on your religious beliefs does not violate the whole church and state thinger.

 

[pedr]

There are three ways to become a member of the House of Lords, which is like the US or Canadian senates in its position in the legislature (far more like Canada, I think).

The main way is to be appointed a Life Peer. This is usually a political appointment, with conventions ensuring that the current ruling party doesn't just appoint its own members.

The second is to be one of 92 hereditary peers elected by the other hereditary nobles. These seats are what remains of the pre-1950s situation where all entitlement to sit in the Lords was because you inherited a noble title (or a hereditary title was created for you, which was very rare).

The third, relevant to this thread, is to be the Archbishop of Canterbury or York, or one of the longest serving/most senior 24 diocesan Bishops of the Church of England. These are ex officio seats. No-one would create that system today, but constitutions get things which only exist because of history, over time (no-one would create the U.S. Electoral College today, for instance). If we ever manage to agree on how to reform the House of Lords it would undoubtedly change, and it doesn't do much harm. It's the clearest indication that there's no formal separation between the UK state and the Church of England, though.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Marriage is a religious institution.

So why are you married if there's nothing religious about it? Do you really need a piece of paper to stay committed to her and her to you? Suppose the government ruled your marriage null and void today. Would you rush out and cheat on her?

Marriage is and has always been a secular legal institution that comes with certain rights and privileges. And the only reason priests have any right to marry people at all is because they hold a license to do so from the state - and this applies even where there is a state church such as in Britain. Jumping over a broomstick has the same legal weight as getting married in a cathedral. If you want to get the people making a power grab out of marriage, then you can get the interlopers out and let people have a Religious Marriage with no leagal weight at all rather than allow the naked power grab and attempt to redefine the institution of marriage from something secular to something religious to continue.

Now you personally might want to utterly change the institution of marriage to something with no legal weight at all. But that doesn't make this anything other than a radical redefinition of what marriage is. And an attempt by you to change the status of every single married person there currently is.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Kansas Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages — But Not Same-Sex Tax Filings.

Because you know, Kansas is special. A guy can marry another guy, but filing taxes together somehow discriminates against religious institutions. Go figure.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Kansas is a hot mess right now.

 

[trappedslider]

Kansas is a hot mess right now.

When wasn't it? lol

 

[billd91]

Kansas Recognizes Same-Sex Marriages — But Not Same-Sex Tax Filings.

Because you know, Kansas is special. A guy can marry another guy, but filing taxes together somehow discriminates against religious institutions. Go figure.

Obvious lawsuit. Waste of more taxpayer money to defend it when the outcome should be pretty certain. Can we bust them back to territory and force them to start over?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Marriage is and has always been a secular legal institution that comes with certain rights and privileges.

Marriage predates history at the very least, and very probably civilization. Ask an anthropologist.

There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any power over marriage. Nor should there be. Regardless, this is a thread about children rejoicing because their parents let them sit at the table with the big kids, not about government overreach, which is the real problem, so I'll bow out and let you guys have more cake.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Marriage predates history at the very least, and very probably civilization. Ask an anthropologist.

...and, as such, has had more than one set of parameters. In some cultures, it has been purely religious. In others, a construct of the state. Some have multiple and/or blended marriage constructs.

Something a lot of "Marriage has always been..." types have no real grasp on.

There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any power over marriage.

Yes there is, it's just not explicit.

 

[Janx]

Marriage predates history at the very least, and very probably civilization. Ask an anthropologist.

There is nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any power over marriage. Nor should there be. Regardless, this is a thread about children rejoicing because their parents let them sit at the table with the big kids, not about government overreach, which is the real problem, so I'll bow out and let you guys have more cake.

This last part seems a bit insulting and I don't think it makes the conversation better.